Jack Smith, the former special counsel who doggedly pursued President Donald Trump, is now under the microscope himself.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has launched an investigation into Smith for potential violations of the Hatch Act, following accusations from Trump and Republican allies that his legal maneuvers were politically motivated, NBC reported.
The crux of this story is that federal officials are digging into whether Smith’s investigations into Trump crossed into illegal political activity.
Let’s rewind to November 2022, when then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to oversee federal probes into Trump, just days after Trump declared his candidacy for president. Three days, to be exact—talk about timing that raises eyebrows among conservatives who value fair play.
In 2023, Smith brought two criminal indictments against Trump, a move that many on the right saw as a calculated attempt to hobble a leading candidate. While no concrete evidence of wrongdoing has surfaced, the suspicion lingers among Trump’s supporters that Smith’s actions were less about justice and more about political chess.
Fast forward to January 2024, and Smith resigned mere days before Trump’s inauguration, leaving the two cases unresolved and without a trial. Some might call that cutting and running when the heat gets turned up.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., isn’t letting this slide, stepping into the ring with a request to the OSC on Wednesday to investigate Smith for what he calls unprecedented interference. “Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns,” Cotton posted on X this week. Well, Senator, if the shoe fits, it’s hard to argue this doesn’t smell like partisan meddling to many Americans tired of Washington’s games.
Cotton doubled down, stating on X, “This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office.” That’s a bold claim, and while no public evidence backs up the specifics of illegality, it’s a sentiment echoing through conservative circles frustrated with what they see as a weaponized justice system.
The OSC, an independent federal agency unrelated to the special counsel role Smith held, confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that it’s moving forward with the inquiry after Cotton’s request. A source familiar with the matter noted that the OSC assured Cotton they’re on the case.
Now, let’s be clear: the OSC doesn’t have the power to slap handcuffs on anyone or file criminal charges for Hatch Act violations. Their reach includes recommending disciplinary actions like removal from federal roles, or they can pass findings to the Department of Justice for a deeper look—though such referrals are rare for Hatch Act cases.
Historically, the OSC has flexed its muscle before, like in 2019 when it recommended then-President Trump remove White House counselor Kellyanne Conway from federal service over Hatch Act issues, though no DOJ referral followed. It’s a reminder that while the OSC can bark, its bite often depends on others to follow through.
For Smith, this investigation—first reported by the New York Post—could mean professional repercussions if findings go against him, even if criminal charges aren’t on the table. Trump and his allies, meanwhile, continue to press the narrative of political persecution, though specific evidence of Smith’s misconduct remains absent.
Cotton’s specific gripe is that Smith allegedly pushed for a rushed trial against Trump, a charge that lacks publicly available proof but fuels the broader conservative concern of biased legal tactics. If nothing else, this probe keeps the spotlight on perceived overreach by progressive-leaning officials.
Adding another layer to this saga, Trump’s nominee to lead the OSC, Paul Ingrassia, a former podcast host known for sharp commentary, is currently stalled in the Senate confirmation process. A White House official told NBC News that Ingrassia is meeting with senators one-on-one over the next month before a vote.
This delay in leadership could raise questions among conservatives about whether the OSC will handle Smith’s case with the rigor it deserves, or if it’s just another bureaucratic slow-walk. After all, when the system seems stacked against fairness, patience wears thin.
At the end of the day, this investigation into Jack Smith is a flashpoint for deeper frustrations with how federal power is wielded against political figures like Trump. While the facts are still unfolding, and no hard evidence of Smith’s wrongdoing has emerged, the probe itself sends a message: even the hunters can become the hunted. And in a political climate weary of double standards, that’s a storyline worth watching.
